No one is arguing that artificial selection is not evolution but it is evolution in a trivial sense because it is micro evolution and not of any interest to anyone in the evolution debate. The debate is about macro evolution and dog breeding or artificial selection has no bearing on this

hear that, all you silly bastards out there measuring selection and fitness, bugger off

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

Here’s another one: F = MA (force equals mass times acceleration) This is a fundamental law of physics, described in the most simple of all mathematical equations, that I use in my work creating finite-element analysis computer simulations of transient nonlinear dynamic systems. (All that means simulating real-life stuff, like cars crashing and figuring out how to design them so that they absorb the energy of impact and protect the human occupants.)

But here’s something very interesting about such a simple mathematical equation as F = MA. Force (e.g., lbf, or pound force) = Mass times Acceleration. Acceleration could be something like feet per second per second (ft. / sec.^2). Solving for Mass with simple algebra we get:

lbf / (ft. / sec.^2) or (lbf times sec.^2) / ft.

Thus, we calculate mass density by dividing mass by volume (in this case ft.^3), and we get:

lbf sec.^2 / ft.^4

How interesting! The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space.

And all of this ultimately comes from 1 apple plus 1 apple equals 2 apples

Sorry 'Ras, but there is nothing new there. It looks to start out as an Argument Bx, but someone threw an I-didn't-come-from-no-monkey wrench into the gears of the Dodgenator 3000 before any conclusions could be spit out.

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

This Blue Lotus clown is a troll. I recognize him. Trolls should be required to identify themselves.

It is a simple design inference. I once suggested that computer simulations that purport to simulate biological evolution should not artificially isolate the means of reproduction from the effects of random errors, and every time this troll logs on with another name he talks about stuff like throwing computers out of airplanes to simulate airdrop guidance software, which he knows is one of my areas of software engineering expertise.

His MO is easily recognizable, and he reappears under different names.

This Blue Lotus clown is a troll. I recognize him. Trolls should be required to identify themselves.

It is a simple design inference. I once suggested that computer simulations that purport to simulate biological evolution should not artificially isolate the means of reproduction from the effects of random errors, and every time this troll logs on with another name he talks about stuff like throwing computers out of airplanes to simulate airdrop guidance software, which he knows is one of my areas of software engineering expertise.

His MO is easily recognizable, and he reappears under different names.

He is a cowardly scumbag.

ALL SCIENCE SO FAR

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

I am looking forward to his mathematical foundation of the concept of square apples and sexuality. Or would it rather be homo-sexuality?

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

It is easy to measure and the minimum amount is zero but not in DNA used to code proteins.

Could you show us an example of a calculation of FCSI for a stretch of coding DNA?

are we going to see some pencils and calculators and scratch paper?

naaaah

Quote

62

jerry

09/05/2009

5:44 pm

Just take 4^n where n in the number of nucleotides in the string. This number has to be reduced somewhat for multiple codons coding for the same amino acid and reduced further for possible substitutions of one amino acid for another in certain proteins but it gets at the level of complexity of the issue. Another way to do this is to take each codon or group of three and assign the corresponding amino acid to it. Then for each group of three the calculation would be 20^m where m is the number of codons in the string. This would again have to be reduced somewhat for amino acids that could substitute for each other in certain proteins. These are rough calculations but magnitude of the measure is easy to estimate.

I am sure there are refinements of this but this gets at the issue and the magnitude of the measure. Just as you can measure the complexity of a communications by calculating the possible letter/character strings in a sentence or paragraph and then reducing it by other strings that could communicate the same message.

shorter jerry: english spelling has more information

colour

see?

blue lotus

Quote

I mean, rather then explain how to do it, actually do it?

yeah right. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAA

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

Yeah, numerical mathematics is defined in terms of repeated additions, and addition is defined in terms of set theory. Deriving number systems from set theory is an interesting subject. (To me, anyway.) I'm not sure how any of that relates to either evolution or I.D. though.

now, who keeps track of links like that? a comment from a thread 9 months ago. either jerry is carlson or he is a bit proud of the stuff he writes over there.

Sorry again, 'Ras. I haven't socked since poachy got banned.

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Give us your real name, as I have done. Otherwise, please do us the favor of blessing us with your absence.

GEM of TKI to that

I'll just comment that I do think this Gil baiting is a bit unkind. Whilst some of his ideas are a bit, um, odd, he doesn't come across as being malicious or nasty. And he has at least made something of his off-line life.

Now jerry, on the other hand, deserves the vitriol aimed at him.

--------------It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

GilDodgen: All computational evolutionary algorithms artificially isolate the effects of random mutation on the underlying machinery: the CPU instruction set, operating system, and algorithmic processes responsible for the replication process.

If the blind-watchmaker thesis is correct for biological evolution, all of these artificial constraints must be eliminated. Every aspect of the simulation, both hardware and software, must be subject to random errors.

Of course, this would result in immediate disaster and the extinction of the CPU, OS, simulation program, and the programmer, who would never get funding for further realistic simulation experiments.

GilDodgen lashes out.

Quote

GilDodgen: With all due lack of respect, you are a clown, hiding behind your anonymity.

Click on my name or Google it, and you can find out all about me.

You must do the same in order for this conversation to continue. Give your real name so I have as much information about you as you do about me, or do us both a favor and crawl back into the hole from which you emerged.

Give us your real name, as I have done. Otherwise, please do us the favor of blessing us with your absence.

I don't think it's productive to call GilDodgen names. He is certainly accomplished in a number of ways, and for that he deserves respect. But when he's wrong, he should be called on it. Nor should GilDodgen react in such a fashion.

Quote

C_G_K: The underlying machinery (OS, programs, hardware and so on) are an important part of genetic algorithms and therefore become part of the simulation.

This is a perfect opportunity for GilDodgen to correct this wrong perception. The hardware is not part of the world being simulated.

Quote

GilDodgen: I once suggested that computer simulations that purport to simulate biological evolution should not artificially isolate the means of reproduction from the effects of random errors, and every time this troll logs on with another name he talks about stuff like throwing computers out of airplanes to simulate airdrop guidance software, which he knows is one of my areas of software engineering expertise.

The "means of reproduction" can and are simulated by evolutionary models. But that is *not* done by mutating the CPU or OS.

It's obvious that GilDodgen feels inadequate, constantly peppering his posts with references to his accomplishments. He is sensitive—overly so. It is a common circumstance when someone who can't admit error is confronted, repeatedly, with the source of his error.

But he said what he said. Even now, GilDodgen's language hedges on the distinction. He refuses to accept that he was wrong, is wrong. This will remain an issue for as long as he maintains his position.

Sympathy for GilDodgen's obvious discomfort is understandable—it's anguishing to watch him—, but it seems to be something to do with GilDodgen, not with Blue Lotus.

-Edited for clarity.

--------------Proudly banned threefour five times by Uncommon Descent.There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

If the blind-watchmaker thesis is correct for biological evolution, all of these artificial constraints must be eliminated. Every aspect of the simulation, both hardware and software, must be subject to random errors.

Of course, this would result in immediate disaster and the extinction of the CPU, OS, simulation program, and the programmer, who would never get funding for further realistic simulation experiments.

Someone propose the following thought experiment to Gil:

Create a simulation that runs on a virtual machine. I'm sure he understands the concept. The virtual machine includes the OS, hardware drivers, and programs. All of this will reside in memory, but this is the only feasible way to run his kind of simulation.

To make it possible, the virtual machine would be somewhat less complex than Windows. Perhaps a few thousand bytes. I think the early Apple and Radio Shack computers implemented Basic in under 4K. I think you could easily make a VM that requires much less. A VM would consist of an interpreter and code, and both would be subject to mutation.

Since abiogenesis is not the issue being explored, the starting VM would be a self replicator. It would divide, producing imperfect copies of itself. The division and mutation process could affect both "children."

The VMs would exist in a sea of memory, perhaps a turbulent sea that sloshes around, separating the individuals so replications don't always sit on other individuals. Although this could happen. Perhaps individuals need a virtual membrane.

My first thought is that something like this has probably already been done. I don't follow the details of the various simulation programs, but I'd be surprised if someone hasn't tried this.

My second thought is that Gill wouldn't accept this, because the "real" OS isn't affected.

--------------Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

The VMs would exist in a sea of memory, perhaps a turbulent sea that sloshes around, separating the individuals so replications don't always sit on other individuals. Although this could happen. Perhaps individuals need a virtual membrane.

I'LL SECOND THAT! HOMO.

YOU COULD HAVE SEAHORSES AND TURTLES AND EACH TIME YOU HAVE A TSUNAMI THEY WASH UP ON THE MONITOR SCREEN AT WHICH POINT YOU COULD JUST DO A CTRL ALT DEL TO SWAP TO A NEW VM.

...erm OR JUST THROW THE WHOLE THING IN THE NEAREST OCEAN AND ALLOW THE GA TO SLOSH IN THROUGH THE USB PORT.dt

Gil's bitchin' isn't covering up his lying for Jesus.I'll bet he is way out of the loop on the latest developments on weapons programming.

He has some fair accomplishments, but he tries to whip those out seemingly at every possible opportunity, as if he's got some kind of tiny pianist complex (I was trying to figure out how to sneak in that Krusty teh Clown ref.).

To be honest, his musicianship is his most formidable achievement. The code-jockeying...eh, others might see that as more important. The "I was a teenage were-athesist" shit is just trite, esp. when it constantly prefaces / accompanies his pontifications regarding matters he clearly doesn't understand or wish to understand. As Zach mentioned, there's also the overblown ego that can't accept/admit being wrong without a frilly flounce-attack. Add in his questionable behavior when he was actually modding. (Although, compared to Scooter, Gil was a little ray of sunshine.)

Aside from those quibbles, he seems moderately tolerable, even if I can't imagine doing so overly long in any social setting.

Gil is right, Blue Lotus also goes by David v. Squatney. So, Blue, which name would you like to use? To make it easier to follow and for the sake of continuity, just stick with your David v. Squatney handle, and Blue Lotus will now be retired by me.

Just for the record, I know with absolute certainty that David v. Squatney and Blue Lotus are not the same person. I've made a post to that effect, but DvS is now under moderation.

Gil is right, Blue Lotus also goes by David v. Squatney. So, Blue, which name would you like to use? To make it easier to follow and for the sake of continuity, just stick with your David v. Squatney handle, and Blue Lotus will now be retired by me.

Just for the record, I know with absolute certainty that David v. Squatney and Blue Lotus are not the same person. I've made a post to that effect, but DvS is now under moderation.

Gil is right, Blue Lotus also goes by David v. Squatney. So, Blue, which name would you like to use? To make it easier to follow and for the sake of continuity, just stick with your David v. Squatney handle, and Blue Lotus will now be retired by me.

Just for the record, I know with absolute certainty that David v. Squatney and Blue Lotus are not the same person. I've made a post to that effect, but DvS is now under moderation.

Clivebaby will be outing GAB of Talky next?

If consistency were their strong suit, we wouldn't be having this discussion about not throwing Gil's computer out the back of an airplane.

Liars and hypocrites, to the last one.

--------------Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecatedI think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Give us your real name, as I have done. Otherwise, please do us the favor of blessing us with your absence.

GEM of TKI to that

I'll just comment that I do think this Gil baiting is a bit unkind. Whilst some of his ideas are a bit, um, odd, he doesn't come across as being malicious or nasty. And he has at least made something of his off-line life.

Now jerry, on the other hand, deserves the vitriol aimed at him.

Gil is highly narcissistic, in the clinical sense. I would not hazard to say from online interactions if a clinician would diagnosis him as a full-blown narcissistic personality, but a number of the signs are there. Narcissists commonly present fine fronts in public, and brutalize their families at home. They are in fact malicious and nasty.

What's missing from the Dodgenator 3000 is Gil's frequent self-description as expert in one of a rapidly growing list of fields. At best I can tell, he's an expert if he reads a book about something (e.g., computational number theory) and then writes a program related to it. I think this earns him some baiting.

As for making something of his off-line life, Gil has moved from tweaking a checkers-playing program to tweaking the trajectory of a parachute and its military payload. The checkers program entertained some people, and may have contributed indirectly to science by offering competition to programs developed by actual researchers in AI. The trajectory-control program serves primarily to hurt people. What would Jesus do with a computer?

--------------I never give them hell. I just tell the truth about them, and they think it's hell. — Harry S Truman

Here’s another one: F = MA (force equals mass times acceleration) This is a fundamental law of physics, described in the most simple of all mathematical equations, that I use in my work creating finite-element analysis computer simulations of transient nonlinear dynamic systems. (All that means simulating real-life stuff, like cars crashing and figuring out how to design them so that they absorb the energy of impact and protect the human occupants.)

But here’s something very interesting about such a simple mathematical equation as F = MA. Force (e.g., lbf, or pound force) = Mass times Acceleration. Acceleration could be something like feet per second per second (ft. / sec.^2). Solving for Mass with simple algebra we get:

lbf / (ft. / sec.^2) or (lbf times sec.^2) / ft.

Thus, we calculate mass density by dividing mass by volume (in this case ft.^3), and we get:

lbf sec.^2 / ft.^4

How interesting! The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space.

Poor Gil. He uses the definition of mass density -- a definition that assumes three-dimensional space -- to reach the conclusion that space is four-dimensional. And then he fails to notice the discrepancy.

Here's your problem, Gil. The lbf is defined as 32 · lbm · ft/s2. Substituting that into your derived equation for mass density, we get

mass density = (lbm·ft/s2)·s2/ft4 = lbm/ft3

Well, duh. The very definition of mass density assumes three spatial dimensions, so of course we end up with ft3 in the denominator. If you started with a definition of density that assumed 16 spatial dimensions, you'd end up with ft16 in the denominator. A definition doesn't tell us anything about reality, Gil, especially if you screw up the algebra.

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Gil is right, Blue Lotus also goes by David v. Squatney. So, Blue, which name would you like to use? To make it easier to follow and for the sake of continuity, just stick with your David v. Squatney handle, and Blue Lotus will now be retired by me.

Just for the record, I know with absolute certainty that David v. Squatney and Blue Lotus are not the same person. I've made a post to that effect, but DvS is now under moderation.

The cynic in me suspects that CliveBaby knows this all too well, and just needed a justification to excommunicate Blue.

Quote

12

nicholas.steno

09/05/2009

10:05 pm<snip>

That is a key reason that we are Alone in this war. We have to Reprioritize our commitments towards Depending on common decency.

Clever.

--------------The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

StephenB lapses into the personal once again, and laments that UD moderation doesn't forbid kicking his ass up one side and down the other (which entails a change in movement, but isn't necessarily causal). But Diffaxial gets the last word:

You ignore all my questions, misrepresent what I do say, and labor endlessly on irrelevant trivialities, apparantly in an attempt to create the illusion that you a presenting reasoned arguments, which you are not. Rather than accuse you of being dishonest for a second time on the same thread, I will simply assert that you are evading all the hard questions because you can provide no rational defense for your position. Evasion is permitted on this site, so there is nothing to be done about it.

Since you have apparently decided to argue by attrition, getting in the last word would be important for you. So, I think I will grant it.

ETA: StephenB then goes right on playing his broken record on another thread:

Quote

The scientific method assumes those beliefs apriori and gains its legitimacy from them. The law of non-contradiction and uncompromised causality, for example, are two among many fundamental principles of right reason...

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

If the blind-watchmaker thesis is correct for biological evolution, all of these artificial constraints must be eliminated. Every aspect of the simulation, both hardware and software, must be subject to random errors.

Of course, this would result in immediate disaster and the extinction of the CPU, OS, simulation program, and the programmer, who would never get funding for further realistic simulation experiments.

Someone propose the following thought experiment to Gil:

Create a simulation that runs on a virtual machine. I'm sure he understands the concept. The virtual machine includes the OS, hardware drivers, and programs. All of this will reside in memory, but this is the only feasible way to run his kind of simulation.

To make it possible, the virtual machine would be somewhat less complex than Windows. Perhaps a few thousand bytes. I think the early Apple and Radio Shack computers implemented Basic in under 4K. I think you could easily make a VM that requires much less. A VM would consist of an interpreter and code, and both would be subject to mutation.

Since abiogenesis is not the issue being explored, the starting VM would be a self replicator. It would divide, producing imperfect copies of itself. The division and mutation process could affect both "children."

The VMs would exist in a sea of memory, perhaps a turbulent sea that sloshes around, separating the individuals so replications don't always sit on other individuals. Although this could happen. Perhaps individuals need a virtual membrane.

My first thought is that something like this has probably already been done. I don't follow the details of the various simulation programs, but I'd be surprised if someone hasn't tried this.

My second thought is that Gill wouldn't accept this, because the "real" OS isn't affected.

It does remind me of an related project. The GAs are based around machine code. You started with a population random byte arrays and the processor attempts to read the byte string as instructions.

Usually you have a target (such as finding the square root of a number loaded into a register) but you could mix this with another game from the eighties "Core War" where each individual attempts to kill the other members of the population by moving around memory and putting stop codes in other individual's code. You would change the code by putting in random mutations.

In this scenario you don't need to code the reproduction code as the programs should develop the ability to reproduce to protect the "genome" against being killed by competitors or by random mutations

Gil is highly narcissistic, in the clinical sense. I would not hazard to say from online interactions if a clinician would diagnosis him as a full-blown narcissistic personality, but a number of the signs are there. Narcissists commonly present fine fronts in public, and brutalize their families at home. They are in fact malicious and nasty.

What's missing from the Dodgenator 3000 is Gil's frequent self-description as expert in one of a rapidly growing list of fields. At best I can tell, he's an expert if he reads a book about something (e.g., computational number theory) and then writes a program related to it. I think this earns him some baiting.

As for making something of his off-line life, Gil has moved from tweaking a checkers-playing program to tweaking the trajectory of a parachute and its military payload. The checkers program entertained some people, and may have contributed indirectly to science by offering competition to programs developed by actual researchers in AI. The trajectory-control program serves primarily to hurt people. What would Jesus do with a computer?

I spent ~20 years tweaking code, but I can't play piano and don't have frilly shirts.

--------------"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad